[lbo-talk] I don't get it...

[andie nachgeborenen]

CBW have considerable deterrence value, if not as much
as nuclear weapons. The Bushies are not anxious to
risk losing 10,000 + troops -- or unleashing
weaponized anthrax on Tel Aviv. And your point about
Seoul undermines your first suggestion, that only
nuclear deterrents have real deterrent value, and
supports mine, taht nonnuclear weapons are more than
enough. The US would prefer _even more_ that Tel Aviv
and HAifa be left standing, and undamaged my any
attack that might provoke, e.g., an Isreali nuclear
response. I don't claim my argument is immune from
possible criticism, just that it is enough for
knowledge. We knew, and we knew that the US govt knew,
that Iraq had no WMD. jks

--- Luke Benjamin Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
> 
> Justin wrote:
> 
> > My point was not that we knew he didn't have them
> when
> > he didn't use them, but we knew he didn't have
> them,
> > and we knew that the US govt knew, when it decided
> to
> > attack him. The argument _does_ hold up, because
> see
> > the difference in the treatment of N. Korea, ruled
> by
> > a similarly minimally rational dictator, but whom
> the
> > US fears would use the nukes we know it has if we
> > attacked them. jks
> 
> Again, the WMDs Iraq was presumed to possess weren't
> nukes.
> Chemical/biological arms don't have anywhere near
> the deterrence value of
> nuclear weapons.  One can also doubt whether the US
> would have the will to use
> military force against a non-nuclear North Korea,
> since the US would
> likely prefer that Seoul be left standing.
> 
> -- Luke
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com